ChrisWeigant.com

A Pre-Debate Look At The Democratic Field

[ Posted Monday, December 16th, 2019 – 18:27 UTC ]

It has only been two weeks since we last took a good look at the Democratic presidential field, but we've got another debate coming this week on Thursday night and we'll likely not be able to examine the horserace until the new year, so we thought it'd be worth a last look for 2019.

The field has gotten a wee bit smaller in the past two weeks, as Kamala Harris dropped out, leaving only (!) 15 Democrats still running. Michael Bloomberg has jumped into a solid fifth place, and Pete Buttigieg's poll bounce has faded a bit. So there have indeed been developments worth talking about.

 

Campaign News

The voters and the donors are having their say, and it is finally winnowing the debate stage. That's really the biggest campaign news in a nutshell.

More specifically, the big news this time around was Kamala Harris deciding her campaign couldn't keep paying the bills, and that it was time for her to go. So far, Harris has been the biggest name in the race who has dropped out, seeing as how she is the only one to exit so far that had seen a respectable polling surge at one point during her campaign. Harris even qualified for this week's debate, which is more than half of the remaining field can say.

Of course, Harris has a day job already, so she will return to the Senate and await another presidential year. Californians in general are pretty happy with the job she's been doing in the Senate, so she's definitely not going to fade into the woodwork or anything.

I have to admit that I really didn't see this one coming, though. My last horserace rundown article concluded with: "...my guess would be that the next three to exit the race will be [Julián] Castro, [Michael] Bennet, and [Cory] Booker. I feel more confident of the first two than of Booker, who might stick around at least until South Carolina votes, in the hopes that Biden's African-American support might eventually collapse." All three are still in the running, though, while Harris is out -- showing how important it is to not take any of my predictions too seriously at this point, I guess. With Harris gone, the Democratic field has shrunk to a still-way-too-big 15 candidates left in the race.

The upcoming sixth debate, however, will be the first that truly does weed out all the candidates who don't have much hope left of becoming the party's nominee. As with all the other debate culling, this has led to bad feelings and complaints. There will only be seven candidates on stage Thursday night (assuming the D.N.C. can find a stage to have it on without making the candidates cross a picket line, which is still an open question as of this writing). They are: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer.

Everyone else didn't make it. The polling threshold this time around was four percent, and candidates had to have at least four national polls with that showing or better to qualify. What this means is that there will be no African-Americans or Latinos on stage at all, which is the heart of the current complaints. But upon scrutiny, this doesn't really hold water. After all, Harris did qualify for the debate, but dropped out. Even with the seven that made it, we've got the first openly gay candidate, two women, and an Asian-American. That is still more diversity than pretty much every single previous nomination race ever, even just among the top seven candidates. So it's hard to argue the debate rules are somehow too exclusionary. The voters, at this point, want to see the field narrowed, so that those with some support already will get more time to talk. So I have to agree with limiting the field to only seven, personally.

There are a few candidates worth footnoting for the sixth debate, but we'll get to that in their individual sections below.

 

Top Tier

My own criterion for the top tier has increasingly been defined as those with a polling average of ten percent or better (at the Real Clear Politics poll-of-polls page). Because of this, Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the top tier after making it for the first time the last time I wrote. More on Pete in the next section.

This leaves us with only three in the top tier, all of whom are now polling above 15 percent: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Biden is as consistent as ever, now averaging 27.4 percent in the polls reported over the past week. He has been oscillating between 25 and 30 percent for months now, and he's right in the middle of that wave. Currently, he's on a downward curve, but this will most likely reverse itself and climb back up to near 30 percent within a few weeks. Worth noting: out of the seven polls averaged for today's numbers, Biden was at 30 percent in three of them.

Things could always change, but so far Biden seems to have largely locked in somewhere between a fourth and a third of the Democratic electorate. Only three things could change this in a big way at this point, it seems: Biden having a disastrous debate performance, Biden uttering an unforgivable gaffe of some kind on camera, or Biden badly losing Iowa and New Hampshire. None has happened so far, and Biden's support remains pretty firm. He's been the frontrunner all along, and it looks like he will remain in first place right up until the voting begins.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, however, have now solidly swapped position. Bernie is in second place with Warren in third, although in some individual polls Warren still beats Bernie, so this could always change (especially if either one of them turns in a notably good or notably bad debate performance this week). Sanders is now polling at 19.3 percent, a dramatic improvement of over three points since we last wrote. This puts him near his all-time high against Biden (since Biden officially joined the race), which was 19.5 percent back in late November. Bernie seems to currently be riding an upswing, and in four out of the seven polls averaged, he registered at 20 percent or better. This could mean he's about to break into territory he hasn't seen since Biden did announce, which could change the dynamics of the race a bit (if the media doesn't completely ignore it, of course). To be fair, though, it could just be the peak of Bernie's own oscillation, which has been confined to the 15-to-20 percent range. It'll be interesting to watch Bernie's polling over the holiday season, that's for sure.

Elizabeth Warren has finally bottomed out and begun climbing back up again. One particularly bad poll (showing her with only 10 percent support) rolled off her average, and it is now back above 15 percent again and heading upwards. Her numbers have followed the same basic bounce as Bernie has seen over the past few weeks, but her rise hasn't been as dramatic. This has left her solidly in third place, chasing Bernie.

 

Second Tier

Again, my definitions have shifted a bit over time, but of late I've been limiting the second tier to those candidates polling in the range between two and ten percent. This time around, there are five of them: Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg in the lead, with Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker forming a pack to the rear.

Mayor Pete got a flood of good press after the previous debate, and he reaped a big bump in polling as a result. However, this tide has ebbed a bit lately, and he seems to have topped out in the range right around 10 percent. He's now a bit below this level, at 9.4 percent, a drop of two points since I last wrote. Only two of his last seven polls were in double digits, at 11 and 13 percent. But we've got another debate on the horizon, so perhaps Pete can recapture the magic from last time and get another surge in support. He's now the current media darling, so that should help too.

Bloomberg has bought his way into the Democratic race, plain and simple. From nowhere, he leapt to around five percent, which is better than most everyone else who has run can claim. But because he's entirely self-financing, his campaign he will not be on the debate stage this week, since the other big criteria for entry is having a certain number of donors. Bloomberg is never going to meet this test, since the number of donors to his campaign will remain at one -- him. The D.N.C. is already considering perhaps changing this for future debates, so we'll have to see what happens.

Bloomberg has pretty high negatives, and he's skipping the first four states to vote. He's a longshot, even with an unlimited mountain of money to spend. Although I do have to admit, it would be fun to see him on a debate stage. He'd get a lot of flak for trying to buy the race and his own past record as mayor of New York City, but he'd likely dish a bit of flak out to the others as well. But for now, he'll remain off the debate stage for the foreseeable future (through January, in other words). Bloomberg currently sits at 5.1 percent in the polling average. He hasn't had all that many polls yet, due to his belated entry into the race, but so far they've pretty consistently shown him hovering right around the five percent mark.

At the back of the second tier we have three candidates bunched up: Andrew Yang at 3.3 percent, Amy Klobuchar at 3.1 percent, and Cory Booker with 2.7 percent. All three slightly improved their standings over last time, as they all likely picked up some of Kamala Harris's supporters. Even though the differences between them are small, they remain in the same ranking order as last time (Yang in sixth place, Klobuchar in seventh, and Booker in eighth).

The only thing worth noting about these three is that while two of them made it into the debate, Cory Booker did not. He didn't even come close in the required polling, in fact. Other than Bloomberg, Booker is the only candidate in the top two tiers to miss out this time around.

 

Third Tier

As always, there are also a bunch of other people still running. Sigh.

This time around, we've got seven of them (with their poll averages): Tulsi Gabbard (1.6 percent), Tom Steyer (1.3), Julián Castro (1.0), Michael Bennet (0.7), Marianne Williamson (0.3), John Delaney (0.1), and lastly Deval Patrick, who doesn't appear to be included on anyone's polls yet.

Not much worth mentioning from this group, other than two debate footnotes. Tom Steyer actually will be on the stage this Thursday, the only one in the third tier to make it. But Tulsi Gabbard also came very close -- much closer than Cory Booker, in fact. Gabbard got three out of the four required national polls, but fell short in the end. So it's even possible we could see her again in January's debate or beyond, although not all that likely.

 

Conclusions

Even having been burned last time around, I'm going to predict who will exit the race next once again. Of all the remaining candidates, I'd still bet that Castro and Bennet will be the next ones to bow out. Both are seasoned politicians that know that when the donations dry up, it's time to make a graceful exit. Castro hoped for a Latino surge that never happened, and Bennet was waiting around for Joe Biden to stumble, which also didn't happen. Of the two, I'd bet that Castro has more chance of making an exit before Christmas than Bennet. I might also include Deval Patrick, but he just got in the race, so perhaps he'll hang on a little longer.

That's about it for my pre-debate wrapup. I think this debate could be more crucial for candidate support than the last few, but I could be mistaken about that. I guess it all comes down to which Democrats are ready for the holiday season and which are still desperately scrambling around trying to get ready. The former will have more time to watch a debate on television than the latter, obviously. But the last debate did shake things up a little bit, and with fewer on the stage they'll all have more time to talk, so it's entirely possible this one will be a big factor as well.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

61 Comments on “A Pre-Debate Look At The Democratic Field”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, is this next one actually going to be a debate?

    I don't know … I don't think American journalists know how to conduct a debate … you know, if there actually was a debate.

    Just remember, everyone, a good fake debater does not an effective president of the United States make … if you remember nothing else, remember that.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All three are still in the running, though, while Harris is out -- showing how important it is to not take any of my predictions too seriously at this point, I guess.

    You realize, Chris, I hope, that there is only one sure bet in this race.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Only three things could change this in a big way at this point, it seems: Biden having a disastrous debate performance, Biden uttering an unforgivable gaffe of some kind on camera, or Biden badly losing Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Keep hoping ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, man! When will there be somebody in this Democratic race for the nomination who can be called a serious candidate by all the serious people?!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait a second! What if Castro wins this fake debate!?

    Just kidding.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Is there anybody out there!?

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    I heard the debate was likely going to be cancelled due to labor issues.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    This leaves us with only three in the top tier, all of whom are now polling above 15 percent: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Biden is as consistent as ever, now averaging 27.4 percent in the polls reported over the past week. He has been oscillating between 25 and 30 percent for months now, and he's right in the middle of that wave. Currently, he's on a downward curve, but this will most likely reverse itself and climb back up to near 30 percent within a few weeks. Worth noting: out of the seven polls averaged for today's numbers, Biden was at 30 percent in three of them.

    That will likely change when Joe and Hunter Biden are called as witnesses next month..

    The only thing worth noting about these three is that while two of them made it into the debate, Cory Booker did not. He didn't even come close in the required polling, in fact. Other than Bloomberg, Booker is the only candidate in the top two tiers to miss out this time around.

    Booker will likely be the next major candidate to drop out..

    Of course, there is always the possibility that the DNC will be forced to cancel the debate.. :D

    It seems that, no matter WHAT the DNC does, they always end up frakin' up their Primary..

    Why is that?? :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there anybody out there!?

    Define "anybody"?? :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's just call this President Trump's Impeachment Poll Watch..

    PTIPW... :D

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

    Americans against impeachment continues to rise, while those who support impeachment continues to sink..

    Democrats really scroo'ed da pooch on this one..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's just call this President Trump's Impeachment Poll Watch..

    PTIPW... :D

    And, amongst Independents and NPAs, the numbers are MUCH WORSE...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_trump_independents-6960.html

    Democrats ROYALLY stepped on their own wee-wees with this faux impeachment coup..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems' California Debate in Turmoil Again Over Labor Fight
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/13/dems_california_debate_in_turmoil_again_over_labor_fight_141960.html

    Dems will be lucky to even HAVE a debate this week.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Oh, man! When will there be somebody in this Democratic race for the nomination who can be called a serious candidate by all the serious people?!

    The problem, like the fiasco over the labor BS, is that, for the Democrat Party, "serious" means different things to different Democrats..

    The *ONLY* constant amongst Democrats is their hatred and bigotry...

    All else is subject to woke-ness, intersectionality (whatever the hell THAT is) and what the definition of 'is' is..

    In short, the Democrat Party as a whole is not a "serious" Party..

    It's a plethora of lil fiefdoms, each as "important" (IE irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) as the other..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is not to say that the GOP is much better..

    But all the lil "fiefdoms" of the GOP tend to address real world issues and problems as opposed to Democrats, where it is all, for the most part, theoretical and theatrical..

    As such, good (for this country) and tangible things get done...

    With Democrats, everything that's anything is, pretty much, all in their heads...

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While it is nice that the mass debating is over, what the upcoming debate will provide for the electorate and how the electorate should respond can still be best defined by this quote:

    "I didn't come here just to get jerked off."
    -My Cousin Vinny

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I didn't come here just to get jerked off."
    -My Cousin Vinny

    "Look, it's either me or them. One way or another, yer getting fucked!"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    As such, good (for this country) and tangible things get done...

    With Democrats, everything that's anything is, pretty much, all in their heads...

    To clarify..

    With the GOP's 'lil fiefdoms' issue, real world issues and problems get addressed even if not as competently as they could be without the fiefdoms..

    With Democrats, it's pretty much all in their heads.

    As these 2 latest coup attempts prove beyond any doubt..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Due to my change of heart, I am going to try to engage your comments. I am going to endeavor to do my part NOT to devolve the exchange into a flame war.

    It's my hope you will help me.

    In short, I won't push your buttons and it is my fervent and sincere hope you won't push mine..

    Contempt of Congress is a federal crime.

    And, if I had said "CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS is not a crime" you would have a valid point.

    But I did not say that. I said that OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS is not a valid crime.. Which is what the 2nd Impeachment Charge is..

    A POTUS, whether it be Obama, Bush, Clinton Or Trump, who exercises or attempts to exercise Executive Privilege is, for all intents and purposes, obstructing Congress..

    There is NO LAW in any state or federal book that states obstructing Congress is a crime.

    This is fact..

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Acquitted" and "innocent of all charges" are two wholly different things.

    Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The foundation of US Jurisprudence

    When President Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of all charges..

    Just as President Trump can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of Russia Collusion and Obstruction from the Russia Collusion debacle...

    ON THE RECORD: Trump will be impeached.

    Thank you for going on the record.. But considering how wrong Democrats have been time and time again over the last 3 years vis a vis President Trump...

    It's entirely possible that Democrats who are claiming to vote AYE are either lying so they don't have to face Pelosi and their fellow Dems or will lose their nerve at the last second and realize they LIKE being in Congress and don't want to lose that and will vote NAY..

    I grant you, the odds of this happening are long, but they are not astronomical. It IS a distinct possibility..

    The ONLY sure thing when it comes to President Trump is that there is no sure thing..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell takes heat from all sides on impeachment
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474817-mcconnell-takes-heat-from-all-sides-on-impeachment

    It's funny to hear Democrats whine and cry about an "unfair" trial.. Especially considering how House Democrats ran their portion..

    McConnell has made it clear that this is President Trump's show in the Senate...

    This being the case, count on some real fire-works and bombshells... It's going to be a show for the ages.. Basically one big month-long President Trump rally... :D

    Having said that, I can also see the wisdom of just getting it over and done with without any fanfare...

    But I think the GOP as a whole is looking for some payback and I, for one, would heavily applaud them getting it..

    "If one tweaks the tail of the tiger, one better have a plan for dealing with the teeth of the tiger."

    It's my guess that Democrats figured they could tweak the tail of the tiger with impunity and public sentiment would protect them from the teeth of the tiger.

    Democrats underestimated President Trump's popularity...

    AGAIN....

  20. [20] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: "Cancelling the debate due to labor issues".

    Causes me to wonder, does that mean Warren is pregnant???

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Causes me to wonder, does that mean Warren is pregnant???

    Don't DO that!!!

    It hurts when I laugh!! hgehehehehehe

  22. [22] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Michale

    "That will likely change when Joe and Hunter Biden are called as witnesses next month.."

    DREAM ON

    1) The Bidens are a TOTALLY separate issue from the charges against Trump. In other words, IRRELEVANT.

    2) Mitch McConnell is against it and won't allow it.

    3) You can't find 51 Republican votes for such a circus sideshow as having the Bidens testify.

  23. [23] 
    John M wrote:

    [10] Michale

    "And let's just call this President Trump's Impeachment Poll Watch..

    Americans against impeachment continues to rise, while those who support impeachment continues to sink..

    Democrats really scroo'ed da pooch on this one.."

    AGAIN, I have to ask, do you EVEN READ your own links???

    The average change was less than ONE percent. There were as many polls showing an increase in support for impeachment as showing a decline.

    FOX NEWS had support FOR impeachment growing to a WHOPPING 50 PERCENT.

    Great way to SPIN NOTHING there Michale!!!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    "That will likely change when Joe and Hunter Biden are called as witnesses next month.."

    DREAM ON

    What's to stop it??

    McConnell has already stated that the Senate Trial will be Trump's show.

    Trump says.. McConnell does..

    2) Mitch McConnell is against it and won't allow it.

    See above...

    McConnell is on the record as saying there is no daylight between what the White House wants and what the Senate will do..

    1) The Bidens are a TOTALLY separate issue from the charges against Trump. In other words, IRRELEVANT.

    Contrair... Biden's actions PROMPTED Trump's actions..

    As to relevance.. Relevance is what 51 Senators SAYS it is..

    3) You can't find 51 Republican votes for such a circus sideshow as having the Bidens testify.

    Facts to support???

    GOP Senators who have crossed President Trump in the past, many are no longer Senators..

    Senators will do what McConnell tells them to do..

    McConnell will do what President Trump tells him to do.

    I told ya'all that this was a HUGE mistake on the part of the Democrats..

    If the House passes the Articles, Jan 2020 will be one big long Trump Rally... :D

    FOX NEWS had support FOR impeachment growing to a WHOPPING 50 PERCENT.

    Funny how you quote FOX NEWS as if it's reliable, when it says what you want to hear..

    The average change was less than ONE percent. There were as many polls showing an increase in support for impeachment as showing a decline.

    Yes, but the RCP Poll Of Polls is the only acceptable poll here in Weigantia..

    Also, you need to look at the INDPENDENTS and NPAs polling..

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_trump_independents-6960.html

    THAT is the poll that will be the determining factor..

    As an aside and apropos of nothing, 2 recent polls show President Trump has 35% support amongst black Americans.

    If that holds true, Democrats might as well not even bother showing up in 2020...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senators will do what McConnell tells them to do..

    McConnell will do what President Trump tells him to do.

    I know, I know.. That scares the jeebies out of you..

    But you can't say ya'all weren't warned...

    "But it just stands to reason, when it came time to cash in your chips, this 'old'... 'diseased'... 'maniac' would be your banker."
    -Gene Hackman, SUPERMAN

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It's their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.'

    "If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice."
    -Senator Mitch McConnell

    Looks like McConnell just told Schumer to take a flying leap... :D

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John M

    I think, when senator Biden's anger over Trump bringing him and his son into all of this subsides to the point where he can answer questions from voters without going off the deep end, then the former vice president would make an excellent witness and I hope he is called to provide testimony to the senate.

    I think this is the only way to put an end to the ridiculousness about the thought of Senator Biden being corrupt and the sooner it happens the better!

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's strange that McConnell would refuse to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge about what the president did or didn't do, don't you think?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's strange that McConnell would refuse to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge about what the president did or didn't do, don't you think?

    No, I don't.

    That part of the trial is over.. The House had their shot to make their case.

    As McConnell said, if they failed, they failed..

    Senators act as jurors and can ONLY based their deliberations on the evidence presented.

    That's why I am saying it's crazy if Democrats allow the AOI to pass the House..

    Once they do that, they are saying "Here's our case. Judge it on it's merits"

    If Pelosi had any sense, she would pull the vote and state she is suspending this impeachment until more evidence can become available..

    But, as CW noted at the beginning, this is a "Speed Impeachment"...

    Time is not on Pelosi's side..

    Given that the Dems shot their wad with the Russia Collusion Delusion, Pelosi realizes that the American people do not have an endless supply of patience..

    Hence, "Speed Impeachment"...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you have some wrong ideas about the role of the house and the senate, Michale.

    You say "that part of the trial is over" but it hasn't started yet.

    You know that what has happened so far is an investigation and the laying of charges in terms of articles of impeachment.

    Now the trial phase begins where the charges are, essentially, accepted or thrown out.

    So, I ask again, why wouldn't anyone involved in controlling the process in the senate wish to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge of what the president did or didn't do?

    And, I think they should want to hear from Senator Biden, too. Well, McConnell may not want that. Heh.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm guessing that there are many Americans like you who do not understand how the impeachment process is supposed to work.

    But, it is really not that difficult to understand.

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michael

    Re: "Don't do that, it hurts me to laugh!"

    So the next question on my mind is, when she delivers, will we have to refer to it as a 'papoose', in the name of Political Correctness???

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I might just add that, as you are someone who is familiar with the law, in whatever respect, I am surprised that you are demonstrating a less than average knowledge of how the process of impeachment is supposed to work ...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you have some wrong ideas about the role of the house and the senate, Michale.

    I don't think I do, but would love to debate them with you.. :D

    You say "that part of the trial is over" but it hasn't started yet.

    Incorrect.. The trial IS the House investigation.. Once the Articles Of Impeachment are voted on and approved/not approved, the "trial" is over..

    The Senate solely acts as the jury. And, as in a jury trial, the Senators (jurors) can only base their deliberations on the "trail" in the House.

    There is an exception to this.

    If 51 Senators vote to call more witnesses, then that is allowed.

    The gist of the Senate (as I have read) is to get this thing over with.. Word is, President Trump is coming around to that way of thinking as well..

    So, I ask again, why wouldn't anyone involved in controlling the process in the senate wish to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge of what the president did or didn't do?

    If 51 Senators wish to hear more, then they can.. But it's the House that makes the case.. All things being equal, the Senate simply votes on YEA or NAY if the House made their case.. If 67 Senators vote YEA, President Trump is convicted. If 33 or more Senators vote NAY, then President Trump is acquitted..

    I'm guessing that there are many Americans like you who do not understand how the impeachment process is supposed to work.

    Oh I understand perfectly.. After the House votes the AOI, the Senate owns the case..

    In this particular instance, the Dems had the Trial Phase and the GOP have the Jury phase...

    Whoever controls the Jury phase controls the outcome of the impeachment..

    I might just add that, as you are someone who is familiar with the law, in whatever respect, I am surprised that you are demonstrating a less than average knowledge of how the process of impeachment is supposed to work ...

    If you can point to any part that is wrong and supply substantiation those shows I am wrong, I will be happy to discuss it with you..

    But as much as I like you, you simply saying I am wrong doesn't cut it.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the next question on my mind is, when she delivers, will we have to refer to it as a 'papoose', in the name of Political Correctness???

    hehehehehehe Stop it!!! :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats repeat failed history with mad dash to impeach Donald Trump

    “Let them impeach and be damned.”

    Those words could have easily come from Donald Trump, as the House moves this week to impeach him. They were, however, the words of another president who not only shares some striking similarities to Trump but who went through an impeachment with chilling parallels to the current proceedings. The impeachment of Trump is not just history repeating itself but repeating itself with a vengeance.

    The closest of the three prior presidential impeachment cases to the House effort today is the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson. This is certainly not a comparison that Democrats should relish. The Johnson case has long been widely regarded as the very prototype of an abusive impeachment. As in the case of Trump, calls to impeach Johnson began almost as soon as he took office. A southerner who ascended to power after the Civil War as a result of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Johnson was called the “accidental president” and his legitimacy was never accepted by critics. Representative John Farnsworth of Illinois called Johnson an “ungrateful, despicable, besotted, traitorous man.”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474887-democrats-repeat-failed-history-with-mad-dash-to-impeach-donald-trump

    Oft times, history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme..

    In the case of this impeachment, history is repeating itself with a vengeance...

    Nice turn of the phrase from Professor Turley

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is not a lawyer - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has responded to Donald Trump's call for the top US court to stop impeachment.

    "The president is not a lawyer," she told the BBC in an exclusive interview, adding: "He's not law trained."
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50829474

    And RBG is not a POTUS.. That doesn't stop her from opening her mouth..

    She should afford the same courtesy to President Trump that President Trump affords to her...

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In this particular instance, the Dems had the Trial Phase and the GOP have the Jury phase...

    How can you separate the jury from the trial?

    And, I ask again, why wouldn't 51 senators, with or without McConnell, want to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge of what the president did or didn't do? Why wouldn't they want to hear testimony from Joe Biden?

    I mean, this is a serious situation and I see the US Senate leadership acting in a very non-serious manner. But, I guess that is precisely their motivation - to make this whole process non-serious.

    The really sad part is that congressional Republicans must have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents and, sadder still for someone who still believes in the promise of America, this lack of respect for their constituents' intelligence might be well placed. We will see about that in due time.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Trump's Ticket to Surviving Impeachment
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/17/jobs_jobs_jobs_trumps_ticket_to_surviving_impeachment_141972.html?utm_campaign=ora_player&utm_medium=ora-video-widget&utm_source=polls

    DEMOCRAT PLAN:

    Impeach the POTUS who has the BEST economic/unemployment record in our lifetimes..

    Yea... THAT will win Democrats voters. :eyeroll:

    Wonder what rocket scientist came up with THAT plan..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can you separate the jury from the trial?

    Easy..

    When the trial is over, the case is given to the jury and the jury retires to this little room to deliberate..

    All those involved in the trial (save the defendant in a criminal trial) go home and await the verdict from the jury..

    In the case of impeachment, the "little room" is the Senate floor and all the "jury" deliberations are public.. Or will likely be public..

    And, I ask again, why wouldn't 51 senators, with or without McConnell, want to hear from witnesses with first hand knowledge of what the president did or didn't do?

    By way of answering, let me rephrase your question.

    "Why wouldn't 51 senators want to know the corruption of Joe & Hunter Biden that prompted President Trump to suspend the military aid momentarily??"

    You see how easy it is to answer that question...

    Democrats don't want to hear about Joe & Hunter and Republicans don't want to hear about how diplomatic sausage is made...

    So, the likely outcome is a push where ALL Senators just vote on what the House did...

    If you think that the GOP (who is in charge) is going to allow Dems to bring in Mulvaney & Bolton without ALSO bringing in Joe & Hunter, then I have some lovely swampland down here in FL I would like to sell you.. :D

    It's all or nothing. And, considering Dems have a lot more to lose.... I think we'll see a quick 2 week disposition of the Jury phase of this impeachment..

    I mean, this is a serious situation and I see the US Senate leadership acting in a very non-serious manner. But, I guess that is precisely their motivation - to make this whole process non-serious.

    The whole process IS non-serious...

    Quid pro quo is the VERY foundation of US diplomacy.. US says to Pissant-e-stan, "We'll give you this that and the other thing, but you have to do that, this and that other thing"...

    That's what US Diplomacy has been since there WAS US Diplomacy...

    "OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS" is even MORE laughable and non-serious..

    Obama's "I have a phone and a pen" BS was the epitome of Obstruction Of Congress...

    Every time a President VETOS a bill, **THAT** is "Obstruction Of Congress"...

    Basically, every time a POTUS tells Congress to go frak themselves (as many POTUSs have, in so many words, done) **THAT** is "Obstruction Of Congress"..

    It's a completely made up crime, more laughable than "COLLUSION".. And THAT says something...

    The really sad part is that congressional Republicans must have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents

    It's the Constituents who are driving this right now, you can be assured of that..

    The GOP is doing EXACTLY what CongressCritters are supposed to do. Be the instruments of the will of their constituents..

    63+ Million Americans said, "WE WANT PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!...

    For over 3 years, Democrats and Trump haters have been saying, "Ya'all are too stoopid to know what you want. We know what's best for ya'all. So just shut up and know your place!!"

    And what we are seeing right now and into Jan 2020 is the culmination of that epic battle...

    And there is only one outcome.. President Trump and his supporters will win.. And Democrats and Trump haters will go down in flames..

    "LOOK... AT THE.... SCOREBOARD NOW!!!!! Grasshopper!!"
    Cerano, MAJOR LEAGUE II

    Ya kind lose something without the visual and context but trust me.. The allusion is hilarious... :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

    Top 4 Dem candidates ALL show a downward trend and there is no corresponding upward trend for any candidate anywhere..

    Which would indicate to me that Democrat rank and file are becoming disgusted with Democrat leadership/actions in general and that's reflecting in the poll numbers.

    Other possibilities exist, of course.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Impeach the POTUS who has the BEST economic/unemployment record in our lifetimes..

    Nope, that would still be Obama, who took an unemployment rate that would scare the bejezus out of republicants, and rose it higher than Trump over the course of eight years.

    Trump took Obama's already good economy, gave it a tax cut, and has cruised just below those numbers ever since. Some folks say that the tax cut fended off a recession. Either way, eventually the 'fever' caused by the tax break will wear off, presumably in his second term.

    Jobs my ass...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, that would still be Obama

    Com'on!!!! I asked CRS to quit making me laugh!!

    Don't you start! It hurts!!!!

    Obama WISHES he had the minority unemployment numbers that President Trump has achieved..

    Either way, eventually the 'fever' caused by the tax break will wear off,

    Yea, you've been saying that for quite a while now.. "It's just around the corner!!!" "Any day now!!!"

    And yet, the economy keeps getting stronger and stronger and Wall Street records keep getting higher and higher... :D

    presumably in his second term.

    So, you concede that there WILL be a Trump 2nd term??

    That is real progress... :D

    Kudos to you... Tip o the hat.... :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, that would still be Obama, who took an unemployment rate that would scare the bejezus out of republicants, and rose it higher than Trump over the course of eight years.

    Yes, you are correct.. Obama raised the unemployment rate much higher than Trump did.

    But the GOAL is to LOWER the unemployment rate..

    Not raise it..

    And President Trump has lowered the unemployment rate for black and hispanic Americans to it's lowest point EVER.. *EVER*

    Which is why 2 recent polls show 35% +/- approval rate of President Trump by black Americans..

    If those polls are accurate and hold or grow..

    Democrats needn't bother showing up in 2020..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Secret FISA court issues highly unusual public rebuke of FBI for mistakes

    The criticism comes after a report by the DOJ inspector general that found "so many basic and fundamental errors."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/secret-fisa-court-issues-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451

    Obama's FBI get's biatch-slapped.... :D

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From prev. :

    Trump didn’t have Barr investigate Biden for corruption, but he wants a foreign government to do that??!!

    Because the alleged corruption didn't occur where Barr had jurisdiction. It occurred where President Zelensky had jurisdiction so, logically, President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into it..

    Nothing untoward whatsoever..

    Wrong & Wrong!

    Biden was acting on behalf of this country when he met with the Ukraine president. Or, to make it easier to understand the error with your statement, Biden was on a diplomatic mission!

    That means that 1) Barr would have the jurisdiction to investigate and 2) Zelensky would not have jurisdiction as Biden would have DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY as the Vice President of the United States!

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden was acting on behalf of this country when he met with the Ukraine president. Or, to make it easier to understand the error with your statement, Biden was on a diplomatic mission!

    So??? I am sure the diplomatic mission didn't involve extortion.. If it did, why won't Obama back up Biden on it??

    1) Barr would have the jurisdiction to investigate and 2)

    Not if the corruption occurred in Ukraine.

    as Biden would have DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY as the Vice President of the United States!

    But the investigation would have centered on HUNTER BIDEN (at least initially) who had no such immunity..

    What it all boils down to is this. We only have Joe Biden's word that everything was on the up and up.

    The **ONE** person who could clear it all up (Barack Obama) has refused to do so..

    That is very telling...

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    When President Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of all charges..

    Just as President Trump can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of Russia Collusion and Obstruction from the Russia Collusion debacle...

    Wrong again!

    Our courts ask a jury to determine whether the evidence presented at trial is enough to find the defendant guilty of the charges being brought against them — the jury verdict is either “guilty” or “not guilty”; the jury does not find a defendant “innocent”.

    Furthermore, Trump was not acquitted of any charges involving the Russian interference in our 2016 election as he was not indicted on any charges. That is because DOJ policy does not allow for a sitting president to face criminal charges while in office. Again, Trump was not found INNOCENT of anything, he just could not be charged as long as he is president.

    A POTUS, whether it be Obama, Bush, Clinton Or Trump, who exercises or attempts to exercise Executive Privilege is, for all intents and purposes, obstructing Congress..

    There is NO LAW in any state or federal book that states obstructing Congress is a crime.

    This is fact..

    You are right, “Obstruction of Congress” is not defined as a criminal offense in any law book. But that does not mean it is not an impeachable offense. It was the one of the Articles of Impeachment that Nixon was to be tried on had he not resigned. Impeachment is not a criminal trial, therefore the charges are not required to fit legal definitions for crimes.

    Alexander Hamilton made it very clear in the Federalist Papers where he couched his defense in broad political language, stating that impeachment should “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” In short, the president didn’t need to commit a crime per se. “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers,” the people must “take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So??? I am sure the diplomatic mission didn't involve extortion.. If it did, why won't Obama back up Biden on it??

    Because Obama doesn’t have the time to issue a statement every time Trump lies about something that occurred during his administration.

    Also, It is a well established fact that Biden acted on behalf of our government when he told the president of Ukraine that they had to get rid of their corrupt prosecutor if they wished to receive our foreign aid. Hunter Biden’s company was not being investigated when Joe made the demand. If anything, Joe was urging the Ukrainians to get a prosecutor who would fight corruption, and if Hunter’s company was doing anything corrupt, this would have hurt his company....not helped it!

    1) Barr would have the jurisdiction to investigate and 2)

    Not if the corruption occurred in Ukraine.

    Yes, our government CAN investigate the corrupt actions of anyone who represents the government, even if the criminal act occurred outside of our country. This is the dumbest argument I have heard you make in a very long time! I can only surmise that it is because you simply refuse to admit when you are wrong and this is all you can come up with!

    But the investigation would have centered on HUNTER BIDEN (at least initially) who had no such immunity..

    But Trump said nothing about Hunter Biden in his conversation with Zelensky. In fact, no one has produced any evidence that suggests Hunter Biden’s company was doing anything that violated Ukrainian laws.

    What it all boils down to is this. We only have Joe Biden's word that everything was on the up and up.

    That, once again, is WRONG! Multiple intelligence and national security personnel have gone on the record that Biden was pushing the agenda of our country and of NATO’s regarding getting rid of the Ukrainians prosecutor.

    The **ONE** person who could clear it all up (Barack Obama) has refused to do so..

    That is very telling...

    The fact that you claim Obama is the ONE person who could clear it up is most telling that you know that you are peddling bullshit!

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    8

    That will likely change when Joe and Hunter Biden are called as witnesses next month..

    You do realize that any attempt by Donald Trump, Moscow Mitch, and/or Senate Republicans to use Donald Trump's impeachment trial to actually try Joe Biden would be further proof that Donald Trump is guilty as charged of Abuse of Power? This isn't complicated: Donald Trump has admitted that he wanted Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden and has also admitted that he withheld the funds, although the reasons for doing it keep changing because of Trump's pathological lying problem, and there are multiple witnesses that testified Trump wanted an announcement by Zelensky. Open and shut case: Confession and continuing efforts with foreigners in violation of FEC and multiple FARA laws by dealing directly with Ukrainians in order to smear Trump's political opponent.

    What's next? The GOP denies Trump worked with Ukraine to smear Biden? Rudy has admitted it multiple times on live television. Trump tried to shake down Ukraine to smear his political opponent and continues unabated through his personal attorney. Not complicated.

    Also not complicated: How would using taxpayers' dollars and Trump's turning his own impeachment trial into a trial of his political opponent prove Trump was innocent of the Abuse of Power? It wouldn't.

    It's creepy that you'd be okay with a president abusing his office to turn his own trial into a trial of his political opponent. I don't think you quite grasp the concept that you keep claiming that Trump hasn't abused the power of his office while insisting repeatedly that Trump's trial will actually be a trial of Joe Biden.

    Trump and multiple witnesses have already admitted that Trump used (misued, abused) the office of the presidency in order to effect an investigation by a foreign country into his political opponent, and you're basically admitting Trump will abuse his impeachment trial to do the same thing.

    As I said... not complicated. :)

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are right, “Obstruction of Congress” is not defined as a criminal offense in any law book.

    Thank you..

    Obstruction of Congress is not a crime in any way, shape or form..

    I am glad we agree..

    Like "collusion" before it, Democrats are making up crimes because the don't have any REAL facts to support any REAL crimes..

    The fact that you claim Obama is the ONE person who could clear it up is most telling that you know that you are peddling bullshit!

    Nope. Joe Biden claims that he was acting under orders when he extorted the Ukrainians..

    We only have Biden's word on that. The person who KNOWS, the person who would have GIVEN Joe Biden those orders would be Barack Obama.

    To date, Obama is not backing up Biden's claims..

    There are 2 reasons and ONLY 2 reasons for this.

    1. Obama knows VP Biden is full of kaa-kaa but doesn't want to kill the Dem's ever shrinking chances of winning the election..

    2. Obama DID order the extortion but doesn't want to take the heat for it...

    Personally, given all the facts and given Joe Biden's pre-disposition to go off half-cocked, I am guessing it's #1..

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    18

    Due to my change of heart, I am going to try to engage your comments. I am going to endeavor to do my part NOT to devolve the exchange into a flame war.

    It's my hope you will help me.

    It must be yourself you're fooling because I would wager without hesitation you're sure not fooling anyone else. Your comments are the same old-same old predictable line of utter nonsensical repetitive rhetoric and party line drivel... nothing has changed in your rote routine:

    The *ONLY* constant amongst Democrats is their hatred and bigotry... ~ Michale

    Change of heart? Your trolling of this group you know to be largely Democrats continues unabated in the exact same fashion... so you could at least own it rather than the nonsensical exercise of pretending your "heart" has changed when your rhetoric and trolling hasn't changed even one whit.

    In short, I won't push your buttons and it is my fervent and sincere hope you won't push mine..

    Let's be honest: You've changed nothing.

    And, if I had said "CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS is not a crime" you would have a valid point.

    You want to argue semantics? Same old circular spew.

    But I did not say that. I said that OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS is not a valid crime.. Which is what the 2nd Impeachment Charge is..

    No, you didn't say that. You said:

    But what I can tell you for an ABSOLUTE FACT that there is no such crime as ABUSE OF POWER or OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS in ANY State or Federal Criminal code..

    Democrats are choosing hazy, nebulous "crimes" because all the evidence they have is also hazy and nebulous..

    We're arguing semantics, and you lose, and you lose big.

    A POTUS, whether it be Obama, Bush, Clinton Or Trump, who exercises or attempts to exercise Executive Privilege is, for all intents and purposes, obstructing Congress..

    Wrong. There is a such thing as a valid claim of "Executive Privilege," and it is in no way whatsoever an obstruction of Congress to make a valid claim of "Executive Privilege."

    Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

    That is a very good definition of what a valid claim of "Executive Privilege" is, and it's not an obstruction of Congress for any president -- take your pick -- to make a claim of "Executive Privilege." However, what Donald Trump is claiming is that he nor anyone has to answer to Congress at all. He has ordered his subordinates to ignore every subpoena, every document request, every single thing. That is not a valid claim of "Executive Privilege," that is obstructing Congress from performing their oversight responsibility.

    There is NO LAW in any state or federal book that states obstructing Congress is a crime.

    You keep whining about "crime" as if a crime has to be cited in order to impeach the president when it most certainly doesn't. Full stop. Regardless, there is a federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct Congress. Must I cite it repeatedly? Okay, fine:

    Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than [$100,000] nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. ~ 2 U.S.C. Section 192.

    Congress has made a request for production of documents to the president and multiple other persons, and the president is a person who has been summoned to produce documents and has refused to produce a single one. This is against the law. Claiming "Executive Privilege" while producing no documents whatsoever and ordering people no longer employed by you and subordinates to break the law is called "obstruction." The entity the president is obstructing and ordering employees as well as American citizens to ignore is Congress. Ordering American citizens to break the law and obstruct Congress while attempting to perform their duties is the definition of obstruction of Congress. You want to whine about word choices while ignoring the criminal acts? Knock yourself out. Words have meaning, though, so you lose big.

    This is fact..

    Wrong... bigly wrong.

    Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The foundation of US Jurisprudence

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. A person can plead guilty to a crime and never be "proven guilty" in a court of law; this applies equally with regards to whether they are actually innocent of the crime or committed it in spades and with the cameras rolling. This ain't rocket science, but you've proven on multiple occasions that you're incapable of understanding the concept, particularly when you previously kept insisting that Paul Manafort was "innocent" of crimes. Not being found "guilty" by a jury of a crime for which you've been indicted/charged does not mean you're innocent of said crime. It means the prosecutor can try you again or drop the charges, but in no way whatsoever does it mean you're innocent.

    On the flip-side, being found guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers for a crime which you did not commit (innocence) also doesn't mean you're guilty of committing that crime either, but it does mean you're going to be sentenced for it. Juries don't determine "innocence" of wrongdoing. They determine whether or not the law is going to hold you responsible for something you're being indicted/charged with. Not being charged and/or not being found "guilty" does not necessarily mean you didn't commit a crime. For instance, no jury has convicted Adam Lanza for shooting and killing -- murder for those hung up on semantics -- 26 people, but he's guilty. Right-wingnut conspiracy theory idiots like Alex Jones exist to serve a political purpose and claim otherwise, but Adam Lanza killed those children and their teachers. Full stop.

    Am I making myself clear yet?

    When President Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of all charges..

    Of course, Trump can lie about his "innocence" while the GOP ignores the facts, his admission, and chooses their Party over the rule of law and their oath to God and the United States of America. They'll be on record doing it, and that's a stench that's going to linger for a long, long time.

    Just as President Trump can righteously and factually state that he is INNOCENT of Russia Collusion and Obstruction from the Russia Collusion debacle...

    No offense, but your grasp of legal concepts is really bad... seriously bad... so much so that you basically lie when you post about legal issues like this, and you do it over and over and over. Mueller stated in writing that he wasn't going to charge Trump with any crimes based on DOJ procedural memoranda. Not being prosecuted for crimes and being "innocent" of crimes for which a prosecutor does not charge you are two entirely different things. Also, Trump claiming he's innocent of obstruction when Mueller wrote a road map of 10 lanes to Obstruction Highway would be a huge Trump lie... and nothing new whatsoever. Trump can be charged with these crimes when he leaves office. He can't factually claim he's innocent of obstruction when you consider the legal definition of obstruction... Mueller proved it, and Trump can be tried for it... and likely will.

    Remember, Trump claimed he didn't know anything about paying off the porn star, but he did know about it and so did his lawyer... who is now in prison for lying to Congress about it, which is obstruction of Congressional oversight, obstruction of justice, perjury... take your pick... it's all just semantics meaning the same illegal offense against the United States.

    Thank you for going on the record.. But considering how wrong Democrats have been time and time again over the last 3 years vis a vis President Trump...

    You're quite welcome, but I'm still not a Democrat in the same way nothing has changed about you... not your heart nor your repetitive and rote standard operational same-old drivel.

    It's entirely possible that Democrats who are claiming to vote AYE are either lying so they don't have to face Pelosi and their fellow Dems or will lose their nerve at the last second and realize they LIKE being in Congress and don't want to lose that and will vote NAY..

    It's entirely possible that angels will fly out of my ass; oh wait, no it isn't.

    Trump will be impeached... 100%.

    I grant you, the odds of this happening are long, but they are not astronomical. It IS a distinct possibility..

    This doesn't track with your statement to which I responded "on the record" that the chances of Trump being impeached are 100%. You said the chances were 60/40, and those aren't and never could be considered odds that are "long."

    You're already back-peddling. :)

    The ONLY sure thing when it comes to President Trump is that there is no sure thing..

    Wrong. Trump will be impeached... 100%. This is a sure thing, and it's a sure thing because Trump abused his power to attempt to coerce a foreign power to smear his political opponent. Trump is a money launderer, a cheat, and a con... sure thing. :)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    20

    Causes me to wonder, does that mean Warren is pregnant???

    Yes, she is... and the baby is yours.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ha.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    24

    As an aside and apropos of nothing, 2 recent polls show President Trump has 35% support amongst black Americans.

    Mike is apparently still confusing approval ratings of "black Americans" with support at the ballot box. *laughs*

    Even after he made similar claims in the 2018 midterms.

    It's like some people never learn a thing. :)

    If that holds true, Democrats might as well not even bother showing up in 2020...

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT TO [55]

    If that holds true, Democrats might as well not even bother showing up in 2020...

    President Trump received roughly the same amount of support from Hispanics and "black Americans" that Romney and every other GOP president in modern history has, and 2020 will be no different despite all your repeated insistence to the contrary.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/08/get-out-and-vote/#comment-87784

    Approval rating and support at the ballot box are two wholly and totally unrelated things. Try very hard to let that fact sink in, m'kay? :)

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    32

    So the next question on my mind is, when she delivers, will we have to refer to it as a 'papoose', in the name of Political Correctness???

    Certainly not in the name of "Political Correctness" since a "papoose" is a slang and offensive term used by dumb asses to describe a Native American infant when an actual "papoose" isn't the child, it's the bag used to carry the infant in... you know, like referring to a child as a "backpack"... dumb.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    34

    Incorrect.. The trial IS the House investigation.. Once the Articles Of Impeachment are voted on and approved/not approved, the "trial" is over..

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official and names the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials.

    The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. ~ United States Constitution

    The Articles are like an indictment and are in no way whatsoever a trial since that sole power belongs to the Senate. Like I said, you shouldn't even try to explain legal issues because you get them wrong 90% of the time and therefore repeatedly post lies and misinformation.

    The Senate solely acts as the jury. And, as in a jury trial, the Senators (jurors) can only base their deliberations on the "trail" in the House.

    Wrong. Let me dumb it down for you: If impeachment was a speeding violation, the House would have the sole power to write the Citation for speeding -- the "ticket" -- while the Senate would have the sole power to act as judge and jury when your ass appears before a judge to answer to your Citation. It's not complicated.

    There is an exception to this.

    Nope!

    If 51 Senators vote to call more witnesses, then that is allowed.

    Witnesses are allowed at trials... state the obvious.

    If 51 Senators wish to hear more, then they can.. But it's the House that makes the case..

    Wrong. The house decides the charges that are referred to as "Articles of Impeachment"... like an indictment containing however many charges they wish to include.

    All things being equal, the Senate simply votes on YEA or NAY if the House made their case..

    Wrong. The Senate has the sole power to try the accused. "Try" means hold the trial. The House simply determines the charges for a trial which is the sole power of the Senate.

    If 67 Senators vote YEA, President Trump is convicted. If 33 or more Senators vote NAY, then President Trump is acquitted..

    The trial is held in the Senate, and the Senate serves as the jury... sworn on oath too. Read the Constitution.

    Oh I understand perfectly.. After the House votes the AOI, the Senate owns the case..

    In this particular instance, the Dems had the Trial Phase and the GOP have the Jury phase...

    Wrong. The House decided the charges, the Senate holds the trial. Not complicated unless you're stupid or willfully ignorant.

    If you can point to any part that is wrong and supply substantiation those shows I am wrong, I will be happy to discuss it with you..

    It's the United States Constitution. You should read it. You claiming the trial is held in the House is a laugh riot. Crack a book. :)

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    37

    And RBG is not a POTUS.. That doesn't stop her from opening her mouth..

    She should afford the same courtesy to President Trump that President Trump affords to her...

    You are the poster boy for ignorance if it's your belief that President Trump affords Ruth Bader Ginsburg the right to "open her mouth." *laughs*

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    40

    All those involved in the trial (save the defendant in a criminal trial) go home and await the verdict from the jury..

    *laughs* You think everyone goes "home" during deliberations (except a criminal) and awaits a verdict? That's so ignorant it's comical. You do realize that a Judge is generally around during deliberations in order to answer any questions posed by the jury (who aren't at home deliberating, I can assure you). I could go on, but I'm laughing so hard it's hurting my sternum, surrounding costal cartilage, and thoracic cage, including ribs. :)

    "Why wouldn't 51 senators want to know the corruption of Joe & Hunter Biden that prompted President Trump to suspend the military aid momentarily??"

    Momentarily? You're admitting that Trump withheld the aid in order to smear his political opponent. You're now on record that you're fine with a POTUS investigating a candidate for office that POTUS believes is corrupt... a far cry from your whining that Obama would do a "perp walk" for the FBI's investigation into Your Orange Worship. It's good to get the GOP minions on record that they have no problem with a political candidate being investigated by a foreign entity... our own FBI doing the investigation is off limits, but they're fine with a foreign power doing that. Duly noted. *laughs*

    Your hypocrisy is blinding... and laughable. :)

    It's all or nothing. And, considering Dems have a lot more to lose.... I think we'll see a quick 2 week disposition of the Jury phase of this impeachment..

    Pick a lane. You've spent multiple months insisting the trial would be Joe Biden's trial, and now you're doing an about face and insisting the opposite. You've covered all your bases and can now insist you predicted the outcome... since you've "predicting" all the various outcomes. However, the "jury phase" will actually likely be a 1-day thing... after the trial is held in the Senate each "juror" will state their decision, and that part of the Senate trial will most probably be a 1-day spectacle. Not complicated.

    Quid pro quo is the VERY foundation of US diplomacy.. US says to Pissant-e-stan, "We'll give you this that and the other thing, but you have to do that, this and that other thing"...

    That's what US Diplomacy has been since there WAS US Diplomacy...

    Yet no one else has requested that a foreign nation announce an investigation into their political opponent and his family as a "favor, though" in order to receive multiple hundreds of millions of dollars put on hold. Trump released the money when he and Rudy Giuliani got caught. If he was serious about that bullshit "corruption" charge, then he shouldn't have released the money when he was outed by the whistleblower. Oops. It was two days away from being announced by Zelensky on CNN when all Hell broke lose and Trump failed at bribing the new President of Ukraine into kneecapping his political opponent.

    Nice of you to admit the "quid pro quo," though! :)

    Obama's "I have a phone and a pen" BS was the epitome of Obstruction Of Congress...

    Deflect, deflect, deflect. Obama isn't on trial either; although, you were requesting him doing the "perp walk" for a domestic investigation into Trump by the FBI during his administration. However, you don't seem the least bit bothered by Trump calling for investigations into Biden by a foreign country... and no whine from you about a "perp walk" for Trump. Your hypocrisy is showing. :)

    Every time a President VETOS a bill, **THAT** is "Obstruction Of Congress"...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. The power to veto a bill is granted by the Constitution and as such does not fit the definition. The Constitution does not grant the president the power to ignore Congressional requests for production and subpoenas, quite the opposite; that is against the law (must I post it a third time?).

    Basically, every time a POTUS tells Congress to go frak themselves (as many POTUSs have, in so many words, done) **THAT** is "Obstruction Of Congress"..

    Wrong. False equivalency in spades.

    It's a completely made up crime, more laughable than "COLLUSION".. And THAT says something...

    Well, it was Your Orange Worship who kept whining that there was "no collusion" ad nauseam. If you think Trump's repeated ignorance is laughable, you'll likely get no argument from anyone here. *laughs*

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    44

    And President Trump has lowered the unemployment rate for black and hispanic Americans to it's lowest point EVER.. *EVER*

    Trump’s outdated spin on the black unemployment rate

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/26/trumps-outdated-spin-black-unemployment-rate/

    Which is why 2 recent polls show 35% +/- approval rate of President Trump by black Americans..

    If those polls are accurate and hold or grow..

    Democrats needn't bother showing up in 2020..

    Again you conflate the approval rating of Trump with your asinine belief that translates into votes... when it never has in modern history and likely won't since 90% of minorities wouldn't spit on Donald Trump if he was on fire... let alone cast a vote for him.

    You predicted similar support in 2016 that didn't materialize and also during the midterms too when you predicted a Red Tsunami because of all that "black support."

    What will it take for you to grasp the concept that approval rating and support on election day are two totally different data points? :)

Comments for this article are closed.